Wednesday, October 17, 2007

The Holy Star Trek Canon

Because most Star Trek fans are the biggest whiners this side of a wheel of Brie, I've overheard various rants about how the new film by J.J. Abrams and his crack team of writers (or team of writers on crack) violates the continuity established by the original series concerning Kirk and Spock's early relationship.

Most of the bitching claims that Kirk and Spock did not know each other prior to serving aboard the Enterprise. Others are going bat-shit crazy over the casting with droll fare like, "How dare they not cast a Scottish actor as Scotty??!!"

I've adopted a wait-and-see approach until I either a) see the final shooting script, or b) see the film (shocking, I know). While I wish my fellow Trek fans would do the same, that would rob them of their chance to engage (pardon the pun) in pissing matches over who is the bigger fan.

9 comments:

First of all, most die-hard Trek fans will tell me I don't have the right to have an opinion, since I am (at most) a casual fan of the Trek world. I haven't seen every episode of ANY of the series, and while I've probably seen all the movies, I can't tell you the plot of each based on the roman numeral, beyond V (where they met "God").

That said, J.J. Abrams always comes out with strong ideas, before abandoning ship to go to the next thing. I'm optimistic it will be a good story. I hope they limit the jokey meta-references to the original series. (It's not necessary that the new Kirk talk... like... Shatner, for example.) I also hope he concentrates on the SciFi elements and the story, as opposed to making Uhura sexy (T'pol in Enterprise) or a "sassy black woman", or Scotty a goofy caricature (which may be tempting with Simon Pegg in that role).

This might also sound crazy, but I don't see the need or the point to bring in any of the original folks for cameos. Will they play their original characters in some flashforward? If not, it will only be distracting and pull you out of the story. I don't need that sort of wink to the audience either.

Honestly, everything sounds fine to me so far. You're never going to please the hardcore Trekkies (cannot, will not call 'em Trekkers) with anything you do anyway, so why even bother? Abrams shouldn't worry about making the movie Trek enough, he needs to worry about making it good enough.

And are people really serious about being mad that Scotty won't be played by a Scottish actor? Doohan was born in freakin' Canada!

At this point, I don't care what JJ Abrams does with The Star Trek Canon. Berman and Braga have screwed it up so much with the heinous "Enterpoop", sorry, "Enterprise" series that anything Abrams does can only be seen as beneficial. The true hard-core fans have turned to the Web for their Trek series fix, and I just might be joining them.On another note: When did you get another cat, De? And where are the pictures?

Bill - A lot of the die hard "fans" began openly discussing the possibility of Paul McGillion (Dr. Carson Beckett on Stargate: Atlantis) to play Scotty in the new film once the project was announced. McGillion did audition for the role and supposedly James Doohan's son said he looked very much like a younger version of Doohan. Now that we know Simon Pegg has the role, a chunk of fandom is pissed that a British actor has the role and an actual Scot does not.

Liz - I maintain that Enterprise didn't play fast and loose with the canon but instead suffered from being a series that was, more often than not, unimaginative and boring. Berman and Braga's hackneyed application of the TNG formula (aka the Voyager formula) in a TV landscape consisting of much more sophisticated fare (CSI, Lost, etc.) more or less doomed it from the beginning.

As for the second cat, we found Tommy on the side of the road back in May. No pictures as yet - hopefully soon though.

I personally hold the belief that if Trek is to get another go, it needs to be rebooted (à la Battlestar Galactica). There are just too many hours of it for anyone to now think they can "jump aboard" and that is limiting its appeal and commerciability.

Look at Star Wars. Trekkies are a niche group. Warsies don't really have a name because it has much greater crossover appeal. Why? For the longest time there were only really 6 hours of it. Now 12.

I love Trek partly because of its rich history and continuity, but as the post-Crisis DC Universe taught me, even when you're into a new continuity, knowing the old one enriches new interpretations. And saying it's a reboot, re-interpretation, deflates the "that's NOT how it was!" arguments that plagued discussion on Enterprise.

Over on TrekBBS, some fans are proudly announcing their intention to boycott the new movie, for a myriad of reasons. Ho hum.

They are scared about the writers, about the new young cast and about any possibility the Enterprise will look different.

But her, I heard people complain about changes made to the Enterprise, internal and external, and the SPFX, for ST:TMP, way back in 1978. Many of them changed their minds once the movie came out, and some even denied ever hating the idea of change.

But a boycott? I couldn't bear knowing there was a new Star Trek adventure out there that I hadn't seen yet. Quality just doesn't concern me in that first instance (but quality will influence how many times I go back to the cinema to see it again before the DVD comes out, just like the last ten movies.)

In fact, it already drives me crazy that I haven't got back to the US for a visit since the Las Vegas Hilton opened its two Star Trek rides. New live-action footage, and I haven't seen it.

Oh, and De, thanks for missing me! I've been on vacation and away from computers!